Richard LeBaron, Deputy Chief of Mission

Speeches & Remarks

09 November 2009
U.S. Domestic and International Actions on Climate Change

Remarks to the UK Environment Agency's Annual Conference

Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you about actions being taken in the United States on climate change.   It is an honor to be included with such a distinguished group and a pleasure to talk to many of you who are the implementers of change.

No one knows more clearly than the people in this room that the effects of climate change are serious, and they are going to become more serious unless we are able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from all sources.  We need to meet the energy needs of rising populations with cleaner energy that is used more efficiently.

In my career as a diplomat, I have worked on some fairly complex issues, such as the Middle East peace process, but I cannot remember an issue that was quite as broad and complex, and that touched as many areas of our lives, as climate change does.  New technologies, new ways of doing business, new policies, new financial tools – we'll need them all.  And the sooner, the better.

Copenhagen is going to be an important milestone on this road to a new energy future.  The implacable nature of climate change and political concerns over energy security mean that we cannot continue with business as usual.  Our energy system thirty years ago wasn't much different than it is now.  But our energy system in thirty years will be radically different than today's.

Using a few real examples, I'd like to describe to you some of the programs that are underway in the United States that deal with specific aspects of climate change, issues that many of you deal with daily.  Because of our limited time, I will focus on two examples of what has come to be known as "mitigation," simply defined as reducing emissions of CO2 so that the effects of climate change are reduced.  I hope we can find another occasion to discuss "adaptation," including perhaps a dialogue on how best to assemble comprehensive approaches to the scourge of flooding.

One example of mitigation from Denver in my home state of Colorado encapsulates not only the problem and the solution, but the way our political system manages big issues.   Denver wanted to expand its public transportation system.  As usual, funding was the issue.  Denver's solution, according to one news report, was "visionary" but it also was a tough slog through the thickets of local government and project financing.  The Denver Metropolitan Transit District, which includes Denver and six surrounding counties, has the power to tax.  In 1997, supporters proposed a referendum to raise the tax to pay for an expanded transport system.  It was voted down.  But in 2004, after years of careful work to build support, another referendum was proposed and approved by voters to create 122 more miles of light rail and 59 new stations. To pay for it, the voters authorized raising the local sales tax by 0.4%.  The sales tax increase was enough to cover 32% of the projected $6.1 billion cost.  Another 23% came from the Transit District.  20% came from a federal transportation grant.  9% came from public-private partnerships.  3.5% came from a transportation infrastructure fund.  3% came from other federal grants.  2% came from local funding.

The results were impressive – ridership was up 50% in the year the expansion opened, and 32% of the riders were new users of public transport.

The numbers and the funding sources will vary in the UK, but all of you involved in local government will recognize the critical process:  gathering public support, doing the homework to present a credible case, and putting together the funding. 

What Denver is doing is obviously working.  Denver is growing rapidly both in population and economically, and was selected as one of the most attractive cities in America.  Denver is at the high end of American cities: a large metro area of about 2.5 million people, a vibrant economy, and a strong, well-funded local government.  For contrast, let's look at Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania: population about 40,000 and dropping, a former coal-mining town that fell on hard times, a place with below average income and above-average poverty, and where the town hall is a listed historical building.

It's not what they did that was notable; it's how they did it.  Wilkes-Barre hired an energy services company to make an energy efficiency plan.  This plan centered on a new heating and air-conditioning system in the town hall, efficient lighting in parking lots and municipal buildings, and LED traffic lights.  The energy services company also provided a key piece of information: a solid estimate of dollar savings from the program.  The City of Wilkes-Barre simply took that information to a commercial bank and got a 15-year loan to pay for the upgrades. The loan will be paid back over time through the energy cost savings.  Simple and effective. 

I can't resist touching briefly on the program "Solar Boston," a web-based information system that permits property owners to calculate the potential for solar energy for any building in the city.  On their interactive on-line map, you can zoom down to individual buildings, and then use the on-line tools to show the solar radiation per square meter.  It's a short step from there to being able to cost out solar panels and electricity generation. 

For more information on how American cities are dealing with climate change, you might want to consult at the website of the Mayors Climate Protection Center, a voluntary coalition of 1,013 U.S. mayors.  You can also look at the website of ICLEI, originally the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives.

Let me turn briefly now to what we're doing at the federal level in the United States, and internationally. 

Many of our federal programs are similar to programs at the state and local levels.  There are energy efficiency targets for federal buildings and vehicle fleets, tax incentives for renewable energy, targets for biofuels, money for public transportation, and energy standards for appliances and lighting.  These are concrete actions that have already been passed by Congress and are having an immediate impact on lowering our emissions. 

The United States now has the largest total installed capacity of wind generation of any country – 25 gigawatts at the end of 2008 - and we're adding it at a tremendous rate – 1.6 gigawatts of capacity were added in the third quarter of 2009 alone. 

The stimulus package invested $80 billion in clean energy, energy efficiency, and energy R&D.  With these investments, we think the United States is well-positioned to deliver emissions reductions now, and to develop new technologies such as Carbon Capture and Sequestration that will drive massive reductions in the future.

On Capitol Hill, the House passed the Waxman-Markey bill this summer, and the Senate is now considering the Kerry-Boxer bill.  These are ambitious, tough bills that embody the same level of effort as Europe is undertaking. 

President Obama has shown real leadership on climate, and has a talented, committed team around him who care deeply about climate change and clean energy, and who are working tirelessly to bring about change. 

I know there are disagreements on targets and base years, and the mechanics of Copenhagen.  And I have nothing but admiration for those individuals and organizations that constantly challenge developed and developing countries to do more.  But let's not overlook the critical fact that the United States and the UK basically have a shared view of climate change and how to deal with it.  We agree on the need to "chop" emissions with a cap-and-trade system.  Both the United States and the UK want to expand renewable energy, nuclear energy, and Carbon Capture and Sequestration in ways that are environmentally and economically responsible.  We want to make sure that the needs of developing countries are addressed.  

But more than anything, we need to make climate and energy policy effective and practical.  Lofty but unmet goals won't solve climate change, and they embolden climate skeptics and disillusion the public. 

Our goal is real change, on the ground.  Only a few hundred yards from here at the Foreign Office on October 19, the State Department's Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern said: "The United States doesn't easily pass environmental legislation, but when we do, we enforce it.  The EPA is a tough enforcement agency." 

And at an event at Windsor Castle on October 16 for environmental regulators that was hosted by you, Lord Smith, and the Environment Agency, a participant said to one of my staff that "EPA is a beacon" for many environment agencies around the world.  We accept and welcome the obligation to be a force for strong, practical, science-based environmental regulation and enforcement. 

Stopping climate change is about getting practical results from all levels and sectors of society, at home and abroad.  We've taken on a great challenge, and progress has already been made.  Attitudes and practices are changing around the globe.  Local, state, county and central governments are all taking steps on behalf of their citizens.  We expect a solid agreement in Copenhagen that will open the door to even greater efforts.

Thank you very much.

back to top ^